http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.htmlHamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmSomething that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
and much more recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_ConstitutionThe term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
j/K I, too, believe the meaning of "well-regulated" is what was mentioned in those articles. But, my OP was not about interpretations of the Constitution or about who is wrong or who is right. It was about the hypocrisy of politics - in this case the GOP's outrage of celebrities exclaiming their political views (but ONLY if they disagree with those views!).
I got about 100 more...."That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
And brush up on the Bill of Rights sonny.
The 2nd amendment "suddenly insert one that gives rights to the state?"
Uh, how about this one
Now am I going to have to explain to you what "reserved" means; I already helped you out with militia.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I usually turn the channel or tune out when Bob Costas speaks.
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov
§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
BTW, the National Guard did not exist until around 1910.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_AmendmentDuring ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.1
Is the right to bear arms tied to the militia? Obviously. The reason the conscientious objector phrase was eliminated
In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people religiously scrupulous in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty.
At this point, we already had a Navy and an Army, so the militia as mentioned in the second amendment addresses something other than common defense. Herein arrives the scrutiny of the phrase "well regulated." On first glance, I might conclude your reply echos that point but assumes that the "regulated" portion of that phrase refers to government and if not national government, then the intent of the phrase must mean state government.
George Mason when addressing his Virginia delegates, remarked that the Monarchy considered disarmament of its citizens as the most effective means of enslaving them.
Tench Coxe, who was a contemporary of James Madison, said this:
Arms meant more than guns. It could mean swords, knives, or any self-defense weapon.As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
If by "at this point" you mean when the Constitution was being written, we did not have a navy or an army at that time, and state militias were maintained for many years.
http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1210.2...medforces.htmlBy the early 1800s, the United States had made the critical decision to maintain at least a small standing Regular Army in both peace and war, which was a clear-cut victory for the nationalists and for Moderate Whig ideology.
But the United States still had no navy in 1793 when trouble loomed on two fronts. First, the French Revolution exploded into a world war, putting neutral American commerce at risk. Second, with the Europeans preoccupied, the Barbary state pirates, whom the European powers had earlier bottled up in the Mediterranean Sea, were now sending their ships into the Atlantic to prey on American shipping. In response to this dual crisis, Congress passed a Naval Act on March 27, 1794 authorizing the construction of six frigates; each frigate was to have a Marine detachment of one officer and approximately fifty enlisted men. Those six frigates had a tangled history, but a reasonable argument can be made that the 1794 Naval Act marked the real birth date of an American Navy.
There had been a lot of opposition to a standing military under the control of the federal govt.
As to the meaning of the 2nd amendment. There was great care taken to make very clear every phrase in the Constitution. Had the framers meant what Mr Coxe meant, they could simply have eliminated the militia phrase from the amendment. If it wasn't meant to limit the ownership of arms to members of the militia--as being an explicit right--why have it in there at all?
I am not suggesting the founders would have outlawed gun ownership in general. I am saying the amendment is focused on to whom the right is guaranteed.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278